Jharkhand High Court
Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Anti ... on 1 July, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 183 of 2025
....
Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Singh, aged about 46 years, S/o Late
Deobrat Singh, R/o Village Shivnagar, PO & PS- Karpi, District-
Arwal, Bihar, At present R/o Chakradharpur, PO & PS-
Chakradharpur, District- West Singhbhum ...... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through the Anti Corruption Bureau
..... Respondent
With
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 240 of 2025
....
Rampreet Salhaita, aged about 67 years, S/o Late Jailal Salhaita,
Permanent Resident of Village- Nahari, PO & PS- Laukha,
District- Madhubani, Bihar at present residing at Dipugarha, PO-
Hazaribagh, PS- Korra, District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand
...... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through Superintendent of Police, Anti
Corruption Bureau, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, PO + PS-
Chaibasa, District West- Singhbhum ..... Respondent
-----
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. Sameer Saurav, Advocate
Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P. P.
[Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 183 of 2025]
Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl. P. P.
[Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 240 of 2025]
......
I.A. No. 2267 of 2025 in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 183 of 2025
I. A. No. 3920 of 2025 in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 240 of 2025
Reserved on 18.06.2025 Pronounced on 01/07/2025
Both the Criminal Appeals i.e. Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 183 of
2025, which has been filed on behalf of the appellant - Ranjeet
Kumar @ Ranjeet Singh, (the Bill Clerk) and Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.
240 of 2025, which has been filed on behalf of the appellant -
Rampreet Salhaita, (then Junior Engineer) are arising out of the
common judgment of conviction dated 28.01.2025 and sentence
dated 31.01.2025 passed by Sri Laxman Prasad, learned Special
Judge-ACB, Chaibasa in Vigilance Case No. 06 of 2017 arising
out of ACB Jamshedpur P. S. Case No. 06.2017 and as such, both
the Interlocutory Applications are being heard and disposed of
together.
2. Both Criminal Appeals i.e. Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 183
of 2025 and Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 240 of 2025 have been filed on
behalf of the appellants challenging the impugned judgment of
conviction dated 28.01.2025 and sentence dated 31.01.2025
passed by Sri Laxman Prasad, learned Special Judge- ACB,
Chaibasa in Vigilance Case No. 06 of 20217 arising out of ACB
Jamshedpur P. S. Case No. 06.2017 by which the appellants have
been convicted for the offences under Section 7A of the
Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 and Sections 13 (2) read with
13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to
undergo R. I. for a period of three (3) years each and to pay the
fine of Rs. 10,000/- each for the offence under Section 7 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo
R. I. for a period of four (4) years each and to pay the fine of
Rs. 10,000/- each for the offences under Sections 13 (2) read with
13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act
However, all the sentences have been directed to run
concurrently.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellants are
alleged to have demanded Rs. 70,000/- from the Informant on
06.03.2017 for passing his bill and it was informed by the
Informant to the officials of the ACB. The Informant is a
registered Contractor in Drinking Water and Sanitation Division,
Chaibasa West Singhbhum and in the financial year 2016-2017,
he was allotted the work of Tubewell installation by the Drinking
Water and Sanitation Division, Chaibasa, West
Singhbhum, Jharkhand through Office Letter No. 308 dated
04.05.2016 of the Superintending Engineer, Drinking Water and
Sanitation Zone, Chaibasa and of which he completed most of the
work on time and also received the first installment of payment.
Since that time, Junior Engineer Rampreet Salhaita and Bill Clerk
Ranjeet Kumar working in Drinking Water and Sanitation
Division, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum had deducted Rs. 70,000/-
as bribe. The informant also informed the Senior Officer about
the transaction by the Employee and the Engineer, but the Senior
Officer verbally told the informant that the bribe would have to
be given as money has to be sent to the top. The second
installment of bill, for the work done by him in the past few days,
was prepared with a delay intentionally and as payment of
Rs. 2,30,665/ was deducted from his second bill by the above two
persons with the intention of earning bribe and they have
demanded one lakh rupees for preparing the bill again and for
getting the order from the Senior Officer. The informant does not
want to give bribe in lieu of the work done.
Therefore, a written complaint was filed on 04.03.2017 to
Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jamshedpur
and accordingly, after completiton the procedure like pre trap
memorandum, constitution of raiding party etc., The recovery
was made from these appellants to the extent of Rs. 5,000/- and
Rs. 8,000/- respectively and then post trap memorandum was
prepared.
4. I. A. (Cr.) No. 2267 of 2025 in Criminal Appeal (SJ)
No. 183 of 2025 and I. A. No. 3920 of 2025 in Criminal Appeal
(SJ) No. 240 of 2025 have been filed on behalf of the appellants
namely Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Singh (i.e. the then Bill Clerk)
and Rampreet Salhaita(i.e. the then Junior Engineer)
respectively under Section 430 (1) of BNSS for the suspension of
their sentence and for grant of bail, during the pendency of the
Criminal Appeals.
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellants in
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 183 of 2025 and Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 240 of
2025 and learned Spl.P.P. for the State.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellants that the impugned judgment of conviction and
sentence passed by the learned Court below are illegal and not
sustainable in law. It is submitted that the allegations against
both the appellants are false and concocted. It is submitted that
no one had seen the appellant- Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Singh
(in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 183 of 2025) and the appellant -
Rampreet Salhaita (in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 240 of 2025) for
receiving illegal gratification of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 8,000/-
respectively from the Informant. It is submitted that the leaned
Trial Court has failed to appreciate that there was hidden motive
of the informant behind the prosecution to take revenge for the
prosecution lodged against the Informant by the appellant-
Rampreet Salhaita, and also the deduction of Rs. 2,30,665 from
his 2nd bill due to non-fulfillment of terms and conditions of the
agreement in question for time extension because the Informant
had failed to complete the project of installation of Tube-Wells
within the time. It is submitted that there were two shadow
witnesses but only one shadow witness i.e. P. W.-6, Amit Kumar
was examined, who had not seen the amount in the hands of the
appellants. It is submitted that P. W.-6, Amit Kumar had seen the
amount in the hands of the Trap Party. It is further submitted that
other shadow witness Jaivardhan had not been examined during
the trial. It is submitted that P.W.-1, Amar Kumar Pandey i.e. the
Informant had gone alone in the Office whereas other shadow
witness- Jaivardhan was outside the Office.
It is submitted that the appellant - Rampreet Salhaita (in
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 240 of 2025) had instituted one case
against the Informant earlier for doing less work and his bill was
deducted and for which one being Hatgamhariya P. S. Case No.
28 of 2016 for the offences under Section 409 and 420 of the
Indian Penal Code was instituted on 19.10.2016 for defalcation of
Rs. 9,13,458/- against the Informant and hence, the Informant has
falsely implicated both the appellants.
7. It is submitted that although P. W.-3, Jitendra Dubey had
proved the allegation against the appellants, but he is an
interested witness and hence, his evidence is not reliable. It is
submitted that it was managed 'Trap' by the Informant. It is
submitted that the alleged demand has not been proved by the
prosecution and no one had seen demanding the amount from the
Informant by both the appellants.
It is submitted that P. W.-3, Jitendra Dubey stated that on
06.03.2017 he had heard that one of the accused- Rampreet
Salhaita in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 240 of 2025 had demanded
Rs. 8,000/- and other accused Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Singh
(in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 183 of 2025) was to be given Rs.
5,000/- on 07.03.2017 and thereafter arrears of bill will be
prepared. Then, on the date of occurrence he alongwith members
of raiding team arrived in the Campus of the Office and the
Informant and shadow witnesses went to the office of the accused
persons. Thereafter on signal of shadow witnesses, he alongwith
members of raiding team Nagendra Kumar Mandal, Police
Inspector entered into the office of the accused persons and he
had apprehend the right hand of the appellant- Ranjeet Kumar @
Ranjeet Singh (in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 183 of 2025) and
other members had apprehended the wrist of the appellant-
Rampreet Salhaita in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 240 of 2025 and
on search (four notes denomination of Rs. 2,000/- i.e. total Rs.
8,000/-) were recovered from the pocket of the accused-
Rampreet Salhaita whereas (two notes denomination of Rs.
2,000/- and two notes denomination of Rs. 500/- i.e. total Rs.
5,000/-) were recovered from the right hand of the accused-
Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Singh and thereafter seizure lists were
prepared.
8. It is submitted that P. W.-6, Amit Kumar has stated that he
had seen both the accused persons outside the office of the
accused persons while ACB Officials were bringing them outside
the office. Then the members of the raiding party alongwith him
came to the office and stopped them in the office situated
between Chaibasa and Jamshedpur and two officials of ACB had
caught the hands of the accused persons and he was sitting in the
same vehicle in which the accused persons and Dy.S.P. and driver
were also sitting.
Thus, P.W.-6, Amit Kumar had not seen the occurrence.
9. It is submitted that the appellant- Ranjeet Kumar @
Ranjeet Singh (in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 183 of 2025) was
arrested on 07.03.2017 and was sent to judicial custody on
08.03.2017 since then he remained in judicial custody for three
(3) months thirteen (13) days and earlier he had been granted bail
vide order dated 13.06.2017 passed in B. A. No. 3144 of 2017 by
the High Court and after conviction, he is in custody since
28.01.2025 i.e. total for around eight (8) months.
10. It is further submitted that the appellant - Rampreet
Salhaita (in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 240 of 2025) was
remanded in this case by ACB on 07.03.2017 and was granted
bail on 10.07.2017 by the High Court of Jharkhand in B. A.
No. 4257 of 2017 and after conviction, he is in custody since
28.01.2025 i.e. total for around eight (8) months.
It is submitted that the appellant - Rampreet Salhaita in
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 240 of 2025 is a retired Junior Engineer
and the appellant- Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Singh was then Bill
Clerk (in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 183 of 2025) and hence, the
appellant- Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Singh in Criminal Appeal
(SJ) No. 183 of 2025 and the appellant - Rampreet Salhaita in
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 240 of 2025 may be enlarged on bail.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has
opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is direct
allegation of recovery of Rs. 8,000/- from the pocket of the
appellant - Rampreet Salhaita in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 240 of
2025 and recovery of Rs. 5,000/- from the hand of the appellant-
Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Singh in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 183
of 2025 and they were caught red handed with the tainted money
in question. It is submitted that P. W.- 1, Amar Kumar Pandey is
the Executive Magistrate and who has fully supported the
prosecution case. It is submitted that the P. W.-3, Jitendra Dubey
is the Verifier, who has also fully supported the corroboration of
demand of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 8,000/- respectively by the
appellants and he had heard the demand of money by both the
appellants. Thereafter two shadow witnesses i.e. one is P. W.-6,
Amit Kumar and one other shadow witness- Jaivardhan ( not
examined) were included in the part of the Raiding Team of
ACB. It is submitted that on giving signal by the shadow witness-
Jaivardhan, the Raiding Party had entered into inside the office of
the appellants and both the appellants were caught red handed
with Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 8,000/- respectively. It is further
submitted that P. W. -4, Kishore Tamsoy, P. W.-5, Nagendra
Kumar Mandal and P.W.-7, Sunil Kumar Choudhary have also
fully supported the prosecution case. It is submitted that tainted
notes were verified by Sodium Bicarbonate Solution and after the
hands were dipped into water, it became pink colour. It is
submitted that P. W.-7, Sunil Kumar Choudhary is the I. O. of the
case and he had found the case true and had submitted charge
sheet against the appellants and has fully supported and
corroborated the prosecution case. It is submitted that the demand
made by the appellants, has been well proved by the State and
there is presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence
Act for committing certain acts and thus, there is no illegality in
the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned
Court below and hence, the prayer for bail of the appellants may
be rejected.
12. Perused the Lower Court Records and has considered the
submissions of both the sides.
13. It transpires that Informant i.e. P.W.-2, Pankaj Kumar Jha
had submitted the application for instituting the FIR before the
Anti-Corruption Bureau on 06.03.2017. Thereafter one trap team
was organized and pre-trap memorandum as Ext.- 5, Ext.-5/1 and
Ext.-5/2 respectively were prepared on 06.03.2017.
14. It transpires from the Lower Court Records that after trap,
post trap memorandum was prepared on 07.03.2017 in which
apart from the members of ACB, there were two shadow
witnesses i.e. P.W.-6, Amit Kumar and one Jaivardhan.
15. It transpires that the appellants were caught and
Rs. 8,000/- was recovered from the pocket of phoolpant of the
appellant - Rampreet Salhaita [in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 240
of 2025] and Rs. 5,000/- was recovered from the right hand of
the appellant- Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Singh [in Criminal
Appeal (SJ) No. 183 of 2025].
16. It transpires that the prosecution got examined seven (7)
witness in support of its case, who are as follows:-
(i) P.W.-1, Amar Kumar Pandey,
(ii) P.W.-2, Pankaj Kumar Jha (i.e. the Informant),
(iii) P.W.-3, Jitendra Dubey ( i.e. Verifier),
(iv) P. W. -4, Kishore Tamsoy,
(v) P. W.-5, Nagendra Kumar Mandal,
(vi) P.W.-6, Amit Kumar (i.e. shadow witness) and
(vii) P. W.-7, Sunil Kumar Choudhary (i.e. the I. O.).
17. The prosecution has got exhibited thirty eight (38)
documents as the Exhibits and which were marked as Ext. -1 to
Ext.-6/8 respectively and also marked as Ext. -P-6/9 to P-6/13
respectively and Ext.-P-7 to Ext.-P-16 respectively and also Mark
'X' and which have been mentioned in page- 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the
impugned judgment of the learned Trial Court.
18. Apart from this, the prosecution also proved Material
Ext.-1 (with objection) to Material Ext.- 6 to 6/1 (with objection)
respectively. .
19. It transpires that the Defence got examined one (1) witness
as follows:-
(i) D.W.-1, Dinesh Rajak, Accounts Officer, DW and
S.Div. Chaibasa/Panch witness.
20. The defence got exhibited ten (10) Exhibits documents and
which have been mentioned at page- 6 of the impugned Judgment
of the learned Trial Court and which have been marked as Ext.-A
to Ext.-J respectively.
21. It would appear from the pleadings of Rampreet
Salhaita that he had instituted one FIR against the Informant
bearing Hatgamharia P. S. Case No. 28 of 2016 on 19.10.2016 for
defalcation of Rs. 9,13,458/- for the offences under Section 409
and 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the Informant- Pankaj
Kumar Jha and the Informant has also admitted during his
evidence that 10 % of the amount i.e. Rs. 2,30,665/- was
deducted from his bill, which is in accordance with rules and for
which he had also given an application on 27.02.2017 to the
Executive Engineer for not deducting the said amount. It has also
been pleaded on behalf of the appellant- Rampreet Salhaita that
for defalcation of public money one another FIR being Tonto P. S.
Case No. 15 of 2017 has been instituted against the Informant by
Drinking and Sanitation Department. However, he also stated that
Executive Engineer is empowered to pass the bill of the
Contractor. However, the accused persons had power to waive the
penalty of 10 % of Rs. 2,30,665/- from the bill of the Contractor.
22. It reveals from the evidence of P.W.-1, Amar Kumar
Pandey, then Dy.S.P. ACB that he along with Kishor Tamsoy,
P.W.-4 i.e. the Police Inspector had caught the hands of the
appellant- Rampreet Salhaita, [then Junior Engineer in Criminal
Appeal (SJ) No. 240 of 2025] whereas Jitendra Dubey, Sub-
Inspector and one Sunil Kumar Choudhary caught hands of the
another person Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Singh, [then Bill Clerk,
in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 183 of 2025].
23. P.W.-3, Jitendra Dubey was posted as Police Inspector in
ACB, Jamshedpur and who is said to have verified the allegation
of the complainant on 06.03.2017 and heard the demand of Rs.
8,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- respectively from Rampreet Salhaita and
Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Singh and proved his report as Ext.-
2/2. Thereafter, he got prepared Pre-Trap Memorandum. The
Informant was given six numbers of denominations of Rs. 2,000/-
and two notes of denominations of Rs. 500/- i.e. total Rs. 13,000/-
and upon which Phenolphthalein Powder was pasted and
thereafter pre trap memorandum was prepared.
Thereafter on the signal of one shadow witness, he along
alongwith the Police Inspector- Nagendra Kumar Mandal entered
into the office of the accused persons and caught right hand of the
accused Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Singh and other members
have caught wrist of the another accused -Rampreet Salhaita,
then Rs. 8,000/-, which were four notes of denomination of Rs.
2,000/- was recovered from the pocket of phoolpant of the
appellant - Rampreet Salhaita in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 240 of
2025 whereas Rs. 5,000/- which were two notes of denomination
of Rs. 2,000/- two notes of denomination of Rs. 500/-, was
recovered from the right hand of the appellant- Ranjeet Kumar
@ Ranjeet Singh in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 183 of 2025 and
seizure lists were prepared in the presence of the Independent
Witnesses. Then fingers of both hands of the accused Rampreet
Salhaita were dipped into the solution of Sodium Bicarbonate,
then the solution became pink and also taken the samples of
phoolfant of the accused and which were sealed in three different
small bottles. Thereafter fingers of both hands of the accused
Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Singh were dipped in the solution of
Sodium Bicarbonate, then the solution became pink and which
were sealed in two different small bottles. Thereafter he prepared
post trap memorandum.
During cross-examination, he stated that he learnt from the
Informant that the Informant wanted to obtain arrears of Rs.
2,30,665/-, but he had not examined any paper on this aspect and
even the Informant had not produced any bill with regard to
arrears of money. He further stated that allotment work of the
appellant was produced by the Executive Engineer, but it can
only be informed by the Investigating Officer. He admitted that
the Informant was also in the DC Office on 06.03.2017 at around
11.45 A.M. However, he also stated that during course of
verification, the demand of bribe was made by the appellant-
Rampreet Salhaita and not by Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Singh.
He stated that the appellant- Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Singh had
not demanded any money from the Informant during his presence
while he was verifying.
Thus, it would appear that the informant had not
disclosed before him regarding institution of case by the appellant
Rampreet Salhaita.
24. P.W.-4 is Kishore Tamsoy, who stated that he along
with Amar Kumar Pandey, Dy.S.P. had caught wrist of the right
and left hand of the appellant -Rampreet Salhaita whereas the
Jitendra Dubey, the Police Inspector and Nagendra Kumar
Mandal, the Sub-Inspector caught hold the right and left hand of
the appellant- Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Singh. He also stated
that the Informant- Pankaj Kumar Jha and shadow witness-
Jaivardhan had entered into the office of the accused persons and
on signal of shadow witness- Jaivardhan, he alongwith Anand
Kumar Pandey caught hold the hands of Rampreet Salhaita and
during search four notes of denominations of Rs. 2,000/- i.e. total
Rs. 8,000/- were seized from the phoolpant pocket of the
accused- Rampreet Salhaita in presence of two independent
witnesses and similarly during search of the accused- Ranjeet
Kumar @ Ranjeet Singh, two notes of denominations of Rs.
2,000/- and two notes of denominations of Rs. 500/-i.e. total Rs.
5,000/- were seized from the right hand of the accused- Ranjeet
Kumar @ Ranjeet Singh in presence of two independent
witnesses.
During cross-examination on behalf of the Ranjeet
Singh, who denied not recovered any bribe amount from the
hands of Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Singh, rather the same were
kept upon the table below the files of Ranjeet Singh and which
was seized by the Raiding Team.
In para-9, he admitted to have not seen the process of
giving bribe amount to the accused-Ranjeet Singh and Ranjeet
Singh was found standing by the members of ACB and the
accused-Ranjeet Singh was trying to throw the amount from his
fists, but he could not succeed, although he had not seen as to
how the said amount received from Ranjeet Singh, but the
shadow witness informed him that the Informant had given the
said amount.
During cross-examination made on behalf of the accused-
Rampreet Salhaita, he showed ignorance as to whether the
accused- Rampreet Salhaita had instituted Criminal Case upon
the Informant for defalcation of Government amount and
negligence in Government Work and in which the Informant is on
bail. He admitted that the Executive Engineer -Anil Kumar was
present at the time of occurrence, but his statement was not
recorded.
Thus, it would appear that the informant had not
disclosed before him regarding institution of case by the appellant
Rampreet Salhaita.
25. P.W.-5 is Nagendra Kumar Mandal, the Police
Inspector, who also stated that on the basis of verification made
by Jitendra Dubey, a pre trap memorandum was prepared.
Thereafter he alongwith members of Raiding Party and two
independent witnesses arrived in the office of the accused persons
and on signal of shadow witness- Jaivardhan, Dy.S.P.- Anand
Kumar Pandey and Sub-Inspector- Kishore Tamsoy caught the
appellant-Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Singh and he and Inspector
-Jitendra Dubey caught the accused- Rampreet Salhaita and in
presence of witnesses, four notes of denominations of Rs. 2,000/-
i.e. total Rs. 8,000/- were seized from the phoolpant pocket of the
accused- Rampreet Salhaita and which were verified by pre trap
memorandum and found correct. Even two notes of
denominations of Rs. 2,000/- and two notes of denominations of
Rs. 500/-i.e. total Rs. 5,000/- were seized from the right hand of
the accused- Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Singh in presence of two
independent witnesses.
During cross-examination made on behalf of the
appellant- Rampreet Salhaita, he showed ignorance about
Rs. 2,30,665/- of the Informant. He also stated that post trap
memorandum was prepared at the place of occurrence, but due to
non-availability of Printer, the print could not be obtained. He
had also not taken the certificate from the Competent Authority
as per Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act on the prepared
Memorandum (Post Trap Memorandum). He had shown
ignorance that a Criminal Case is pending against the Informant
for showing irregularity and defalcating the amount of the
Department in the Court. He could not remember the names of
the independent witnesses of this case.
Thus, it appears that the informant had not stated before
him regarding institution of prior case against himself by the
appellant -Rampreet Salhaita before managing the Trap .
26. P. W.-6 is Amit Kumar has stated that he was posted in
Building Construction Department, Building Division,
Jamshedpur as Bill Clerk on 06.03.2017 and he was made
witness in the pre trap memorandum in the presence of the
Informant- Pankaj Kumar Jha and Officers of the ACB and one
another witness. Thereafter on the date of occurrence, he
alongwith the Informant and members of the Raiding Party and
one another witness arrived in the Office of Drinking Water and
Sanitation Department, Chaibasa and had seen that the accused-
Rampreet Salhaita and Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Singh were
caught red handed by taking bribe. Then the accused persons
were arrested and he also put signature on the arrest memo. Then
he went from the office of Drinking Water and Sanitation
Division and some documents were prepared as production-cum-
seizure list in which he put his signature and then he went to the
house of Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Singh and seized some
papers. Thereafter they went to the house of Rampreet Salhaita
and from his house no objectionable material was seized.
During cross-examination, he stated that no money was
demanded in his presence. He had seen that officials of the ACB
were bringing both the accused outside the office. Thereafter, he
along with members of the raiding party and the accused persons
arrived in the office between the Chaibasa and Jamshedpur He
admitted to have not seen that as to what was done with the
accused persons by the ACB Officials while they were being
taken to the Car.
26. P.W.-7 is Sunil Kumar Choudhary and who is I.O. of this
case. He proved his signature on the chart of the members of the
Raiding Part and his name figured at Serial No. 4. He also
deputed two independent witnesses from the Deputy
Commissioner and then Amit Kumar, Bill Clerk, Building
Division, Jamshedpur and Jaivardhan, Bill Clerk, Building
Division, Jamshedpur were deputed on 06.03.2017. He also
admitted his signature in Pre Trap Memorandum. Thereafter on
07.03.2017 i.e. the next day, he went to the place of occurrence
and shadow witness-Jaivardhan Prasad and the Informant had
gone to the Official Chamber of Bill Clerk, Ranjeet Kumar @
Ranjeet Singh and Junior Engineer, Rampreet Salhaita was sitting
in front of his table. On the basis of signal given by the shadow
witness, the members of Raiding Party entered into the office of
Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Singh and Dy.S.P.- Amar Kumar
Pandey and Police Inspector, Kishore Tamsoy caught hands of
the appellant Rampreet Salhaita whereas the Police Inspector-
Jitendra Dubey and Sub-Inspector- Nagendra Kumar Mandal
caught the accused -Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Singh and in
presence of two independent witnesses, both the accused persons
were searched and upon search, Rs. 8,000/- were seized from the
phoolpant pocket of the accused- Rampreet Salhaita and
Rs. 5,000/- were seized from the right hand of the accused-
Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Singh and which were verified from
the pre trap memorandum. Then the accused persons were
arrested by him and by preparing arrest memo. Thereafter
production- cum-seizure list was prepared in presence of two
independent witnesses by seizing the files of Tender No.
DDM/Chaibasa 02 of 2016-17-cum-agreement/ measurement
book and certified copy of the file were seized by the production-
cum-seizure list. Although he had prepared the post trap
memorandum at the place of occurrence in the Laptop, but due to
non-availability of Printer, he alongwith the entire Exhibits and
the accused persons had arrived at the office of ACB, Jamshedpur
and had three pages of post trap memorandum were printed out
from the Laptop, which had been marked as Ext.-P-14, P-15, P-
16 and P-17 respectively.
Then he had seized some LIC Policy Papers and Bank
Passbook from the accused Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Singh.
However, no documents were seized from the house of Rampreet
Salhaita. He submitted charge sheet against both the accused
persons for the offences under Sections 7/ 13 (2) read with 13 (1)
(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and further
investigation remained pending. However after transfer he
handed over the case for further investigation to P.W.-4, Kishore
Tamsoy. He further proved his signature on relevant paper of
tender, which has been marked as Ext.-MO-1 and has been
described in page-7 of the impugned Judgment.
During cross-examination, he stated that Agreement of
allotment work of the Informant was not produced before the
Court, though he had seized the measurement book, but the same
was not produced by him. He has not mentioned in the case diary
that as to what amount was paid to the Informant as per the
measurement book and as to what amount was deduced for which
reason. He had also not perused the provisions for deduction of
amount from the Agreement during his investigation and not
investigated as to what work was completed by the Informant
within time. He also admitted to have not investigated the charge
of deducting of amount of Rs. 2,30,665/- from the bill of the
Informant and also not read provisions of deduction nor he
investigated on the point of time extension by the Informant in
the Department. He had also not investigated on the point of
installation of CCTV in the office of the accused persons.
27. D.W.-1 is Dinesh Rajak, Defence Witness, who had
been posted as Divisional Accounts Officer in Drinking Water
and Sanitation Division, Chaibasa. He proved the Ext.-A, which
is the Office Order No. 18 dated 29.06.2011 issued by Sri
Prabhudayal Mandal, Executive Engineer, Drinking Water and
Sanitation Division, Chaibasa. He further proved the certificate
issued by Superintending Engineer marked as Ext.-B. He also
proved the Memo No. 2184 dated 13.07.2017, which was printed
by Typist of the Office the Executive Engineer and Sri Sunil
Kumar, Executive Engineer had put his signature, which is
marked as Ext.-C. He is aware of the PWD Code as being
Divisional Account Officer and on the basis of this Code, all
Contractors are being paid by the Departmnet. As per the PWD
Code, there is provision for deducting payable amount from the
Contractor to the extent of 10 % for not executing the work
within time period. The deduction of 10 % can be waived only on
the extension of time on the application of the Contractor and for
which the Contractor has to file an application for extension of
time before the Executive Engineer and the Executive Engineer
has to send application with recommendation to the
Superintending Engineer and, who, in turn, forward the same
with his recommendation to the Chief Engineer and only the
Chief Engineer can pass the order for waiving the deduction of
the amount and for extension of time and in the entire process
there is no role of Bill Clerk.
28. He further proved the application dated 03.03.2017
given by the Contractor Pankaj Kumar Jha before the Executive
Engineer for extension of time and for waiving the amount of
deduction and which were issued in the signature of the
Executive Engineer and which has been marked as Ext.-D. He
further proved the letter dated 06.03.2017 issued under the
signature of Executive Engineer, Sri Prabhu Dayal Mandal,
marked as Ext.-E. He further proved the application dated
11.04.2017 filed by the Informant- Pankaj Kumar Jha, Contractor
in prescribed format before the Executive Engineer for extension
of time and for waiving the deduction and which was issued
under the signature of the Executive Engineer marked as Ext.-F.
He further proved the letter issued by the Regional Chief
Engineer, Sri Sadanand Mandal as Ext.-G.
29. He further proved the Agreement in respect of firm
Narmada Construction of the Informant- Pankaj Kumar Jha as
Ext.- H and Clause-3 of the said agreement, prescribed that 10 %
amount will be deducted, if the work is not completed within time
and the date of agreement was recorded as 03.08.2016. He also
stated that as per the agreement, the Informant has installed 92
Tube wells instead of 110 Tube wells as per the Work Order dated
11.02.2017. He also stated that there is no role of Bill Clerk, if
amount of 10 % is deducted from the bill of the Contractor.
30. It also appears that the Informant-Pankaj Kumar Jha
has concealed the fact of institution of Hatgamharia P. S. Case
No. 28 of 2016 under Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal
Code against him, which was lodged by the appellant Rampreet
Salhaita [Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 240 of 2025].
31. It also appears that even shadow witness P.W.-6,
Amit Kumar had not seen the Informant for giving any amount in
the hands of the appellants whereas other shadow witness has not
been examined by the prosecution, who was said to be outside the
office of the appellant.
32. It is submitted that P.W.-3, Jitendra Dubey had
merely stated that he had verified the information on
06.03.2017and had heard that the appellant- Rampreet Salhaita
had demanded the bribe.
33. P.W.-4, Kishore Tamsoy has admitted during his
cross-examination that he had not seen the appellant taking bribe
from the Informant, although he was inside the Chamber of the
appellant- Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Singh and he had seen that
the appellant- Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Singh in standing
position an no bribe was demanded by the accused- Ranjeet
Singh during his presence.
34. It also reveals that P.W.-2, Pankaj Kumar Jha has
admitted during his cross-examination that Rs. 2,30,665/- was
recovered from his bill on 25.02.2017 due to extension of time in
his measurement book. He also admitted that there is some
overwriting in the date of below his signature i.e. Complaint
Petition filed by him.
35. P.W.-2, Pankaj Kumar Jha i.e the Informant has admitted
that the appellant Rampreet Salhaita [Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 240 of
2025] had lodged a case being Hatgamharia P. S. Case No. 28 of
2016 under Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code
against him. He also admitted that institution of Tonto P. S. Case
No. 15 of 2017 for the offences under Sections 409 and 420 of
the Indian Penal Code instituted by the Drinking and Sanitation
Department.
36. From the evidences of P.W.-3, Jitendra Dubey, it
would appear that he ha not verified the demand of Rs. 5,000/-
made by the appellant-Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Singh.
37. P.W.-4, Kishore Tamsoy admitted that bribe amount
were kept upon the table below file of Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet
Singh.
38. It further reveals that there is contradiction on the
point of recovery of money in the evidences of P.W.-4, Kishore
Tamsoy and P.W.-5, Nagendra Kumar Mandal as P.W.-4, Kishore
Tamsoy has stated that bribe amount was kept below the files of
the appellant- Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Singh whereas the
P.W.-5, Nagendra Kumar Mandal has stated that Rs. 5,000/- were
seized from the right hand of the appellant- Ranjeet Kumar @
Ranjeet Singh.
39. It also reveals from the evidence of P.W.-7, Sunit
Kumar Choudhary i.e. the I. O. of the case and he is also the
member of the Raiding Team. Thereafter he has been made the
Investigating Officer of this case.
40. It would appear from the evidence of D.W.-1- Dinesh
Rajak that there is provision in the PWD Code for deduction of
the amount to the extent of 10 % from the Bill of the Contractor,
if any Contractor does not execute the said work within the said
time period an even the Informant had filed the application before
the Executive Engineer on 03.03.2017 for extension of time for
computing the work in question.
41. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan
Singh vs. The State of Rajasthan reported in (1976) 1 SCC 15
has held that the complainant cannot be the Investigating Officer
himself.
42. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Bhagwan Singh vs. The State of Rajasthan reported in (1976) 1
SCC 15 at para-5 and 6 as follows:-
"Para-5:- Now, ordinarily this Court does not interfere
with concurrent findings of fact reached by the trial court
and the High Court on an appreciation of the evidence.
But this is one of those rare and exceptional cases where
we find that several important circumstances have not
been taken into account by the trial court and the High
Court and that has resulted in serious miscarriage of
justice calling for interference from this Court. We may
first refer to a rather disturbing feature of this case. It is
indeed such an unusual feature that it is quite surprising
that it should have escaped the notice of the trial court
and the High Court. Head Constable Ram Singh was the
person to whom the offer of bribe was alleged to have
been made by the appellant and he was the informant or
complainant who lodged the first information report for
taking action against the appellant. It is difficult to
understand how in these circumstances Head Constable
Ram Singh could undertake investigation of the case.
How could the complainant himself be the investigator?
In fact, Head Constable Ram Singh, being an officer
below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, was
not authorised to investigate the case but we do not
attach any importance to that fact, as that may not affect
the validity of the conviction. The infirmity which we are
pointing out is not an infirmity arising from investigation
by an officer not authorised to do so, but an infirmity
arising from investigation by a Head Constable who was
himself the person to whom the bribe was alleged to have
been offered and who lodged the first information report
as informant or complainant. This is an infirmity which is
bound to reflect on the credibility of the prosecution case.
Para-6:- Then again, it may be noted that the entire case
of the prosecution rests solely on the testimony of Head
Constable Ram Singh and four other police constables.
There is not a single independent witness to depose to the
offer of bribe by the appellant. The bundle of currency
notes of Rs 510 was, according to the prosecution, seized
by Head Constable Ram Singh under a seizure memo Ex.
P-1 but the only persons who signed as panch witnesses
to this seizure were Head Constable Ram Singh and his
subordinate police constables. Head Constable Ram
Singh did not make any effort to get independent
respectable witnesses in whose presence the seizure could
be made. The time when the seizure was made was,
according to the prosecution, a little after 5 a.m. in the
morning. Head Constable Ram Singh could have easily
sent one of the four police constables accompanying him
to a nearby village in order to get some independent
respectable witnesses. If, for any reason that was not
possible, he could have taken the appellant and Ram Raj
together with the cart to the police station and there,
made a seizure memo in the presence of independent
respectable panch witnesses. In fact, according to the
statement made by the appellant in his examination under
Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Ramji
Lal, Om Prakash and two other persons of Village Bilothi
were present when the incident took place and any two of
them could have been asked to witness the seizure memo.
The prosecution case, of course, was that none of these
four persons happened to be there at the time of the
incident, but at least, so far as two persons by the name of
Lallu Ram and Kamal Singh are concerned, there is no
doubt that they arrived on the scene and witnessed the
incident. The judgment of the Court of the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Bharatpur, acquitting the appellant of the
offence under Section 7 read with Section 3 of the
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in connection with
transport of the aforesaid six bags of gram, shows that in
that case, the prosecution examined Lallu Ram and
Kamal Singh as witnesses who were present at the time of
the arrest of the appellant. Then, it is inexplicable as to
why seizure memo was not prepared in the presence of
Lallu Ram and Kamal Singh and their signatures were
not obtained on the seizure memo. They were important
respectable witnesses wholly unconnected with the
appellant and if the bundle of currency notes of Rs 510
was seized in the manner alleged by the prosecution, they
could have furnished the most credible piece of evidence.
Moreover, it may be noticed that the seizure memo in
connection with the bundle of currency notes of Rs 510
does not state the circumstances in which it came to be
seized. There is no reference to the conversation which is
supposed to have taken place between the appellant and
Head Constable Ram Singh in connection with the offer
of bribe. The whole episode seems to be shrouded in
secrecy and there is nothing but the evidence of police
constables to support it. How can such an episode be
believed? Can it be said to be free from reasonable
doubt?"
43. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held in the case
of Megha Singh vs. State of Haryana reported in (1996) 11
SCC 709 15 that the officer who had arrested the accused
should not have proceeded with the investigation of this case.
The above judgment has been followed in the case of State By
Inspector of Police, Narcotic Intelligence Bureau, Madurai,
Tamil Nadu vs. Rajangam reported in (2010) 15 SCC 369.
44. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Megha Singh vs. State of Haryana reported in (1996) 11
SCC 709 at para-4 as follows:-
"Para-4:- After considering the facts and circumstances
of the case, it appears to us that there is discrepancy in
the depositions of PWs 2 and 3 and in the absence of any
independent corroboration such discrepancy does not
inspire confidence about the reliability of the prosecution
case. We have also noted another disturbing feature in
this case. PW 3, Siri Chand, Head Constable arrested the
accused and on search being conducted by him a pistol
and the cartridges were recovered from the accused. It
was on his complaint a formal first information report
was lodged and the case was initiated. He being
complainant should not have proceeded with the
investigation of the case. But it appears to us that he was
not only the complainant in the case but he carried on
with the investigation and examined witnesses under
Section 161 CrPC. Such practice, to say the least, should
not be resorted to so that there may not be any occasion
to suspect fair and impartial investigation."
45. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of State By Inspector of Police, Narcotic Intelligence
Bureau, Madurai, Tamil Nadu vs. Rajangam reported in
(2010) 15 SCC 369 at para nos.8, 9 and 10 as follows:-
"Para-8:- The short question which falls for
consideration of this Court is: whether PW 6 who
registered the crime could have investigated the case or
an independent officer ought to have investigated the
case?
Para-9:- The learned counsel appearing for the accused
submitted that the controversy involved in this case is no
longer res integra. In Megha Singh v. State of
Haryana [(1996) 11 SCC 709 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 267] ,
this Court has taken a categorical view that the officer
who arrested the accused should not have proceeded with
the investigation of the case. The relevant paragraph
reads as under: (SCC p. 711, para 4)
"4. ... We have also noted another disturbing
feature in this case. PW 3, Siri Chand, Head
Constable arrested the accused and on search being
conducted by him a pistol and the cartridges were
recovered from the accused. It was on his complaint a
formal first information report was lodged and the
case was initiated. He being complainant should not
have proceeded with the investigation of the case. But
it appears to us that he was not only the complainant
in the case but he carried on with the investigation
and examined witnesses under Section 161 CrPC.
Such practice, to say the least, should not be resorted
to so that there may not be any occasion to suspect
fair and impartial investigation."
Para-10:- The ratio of Megha case [(1996) 11 SCC 709 :
1997 SCC (Cri) 267] has been followed by other cases.
In another case in Balasundaran v. State [(1999) 113
ELT 785 (Mad)] , in para 16, the Madras High Court
took the same view. The relevant portion reads as under:
(ELT p. 790, para 16)
"16. Learned counsel for the appellants also stated
that PW 5 being the Inspector of Police who was
present at the time of search and he was the
investigating officer and as such it is fatal to the case
of the prosecution. PW 5, according to the
prosecution, was present with PWs 3 and 4 at the time
of search. In fact, PW 5 alone took up investigation in
the case and he had examined the witnesses. No doubt
the successor to PW 5 alone had filed the charge-
sheet. But there is no material to show that he had
examined any other witness. It therefore follows that
PW 5 was the person who really investigated the case.
PW 5 was the person who had searched the
appellants in question and he being the investigation
officer, certainly it is not proper and correct. The
investigation ought to have been done by any other
investigating agency. On this score also, the
investigation is bound to suffer and as such the entire
proceedings will be vitiated."
46. It is evident that P.W.-7,Sunil Kumar Choudhary was
also the member of the Raiding Party and he had arrested the
appellant Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Singh [Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.
183 of 2025] and the appellant Rampreet Salhaita [Cr. Appeal
(SJ) No. 240 of 2025] and he was made Investigating Officer of
this case.
47. In view of the discussion made above and on the
facts and in the circumstances of the case and also considering
the custody of the appellants, who were remained in jail for
around eight (8) months and hence during pendency of these
appeals, the appellant Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Singh [Cr.
Appeal (SJ) No. 183 of 2025] and the appellant Rampreet
Salhaita [Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 240 of 2025] are directed to be
released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
thousand only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to
the satisfaction of Sri Laxman Prasad, learned Special Judge-
ACB, Chaibasa/ or his Successor Court in Vigilance Case No. 06
of 2017 arising out of ACB Jamshedpur P. S. Case No. 06.2017
subject to condition that one of the bailors must be own relative
of the appellants.
48. Thus, I.A. No. 2267 of 2025 in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 183 of
2025 and I. A. No. 3920 of 2025 in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 240 of
2025 are allowed and stand disposed of.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Kamlesh/
